DC is 60% black!?

[dazzleman]

Housing projects.

I live in Arlington right now and work in DC, and just walking around in the nice areas you'd think blacks were a small minority. But that's because you don't go to the bad areas... if you do (and are white), you're not leaving.

The city is getting whiter, though, as crappy areas are gradually bought up and redeveloped.. not even that gradual anymore, happening quite quickly.

Oh please/  D.C has somme bad areas, but just because your white & go to those areas doesn't mean your in danger.  Just like most inner-cities you only have something to worry about is if your gang affiliated & you run into members of a rival gang,  Just being white,, doesn't put you in any danger

I wish you were right, but I think you're incredibly naive to think that being white doesn't put you in great danger in certain black neighborhoods.  It's an unfortunate fact of life, just as it is very dangerous for blacks to go into certain types of white neighborhoods.

[dazzleman]

And white people are moving back into the city.

Perhaps its just desegregation slowly taking place.

I'm not sure why voting 85% Democrat would make someone think its 85% black. Seattle is 70% white and still voted 81% Kerry. White people in cities are liberal too.

Whites moving back into the city does not mean desegragation.  It simply means that neighborhoods transition from mostly black to mostly white, just as they transitioned in the other direction in the 1960s and 1970s.  There will never be true broad-based desegregation until the cultural gap between blacks and whites is significantly narrowed.

[dazzleman]

this was always my feeling about Harlem as well.  people would say, "you walked through harlem?  alone?  and white?" as though being white made me a peculiar target.  In fact, to listen to Al Sharpton, and others, black-on-black crime is a bigger problem in such neighborhoods just now.  There's still a lingering perception of black-as-criminal among nonblacks (particularly asians, but to some degree whites as well).  Of course, kneejerk policy responses and Political Correctness isn't going to fix that lingering perception, but then I think people are starting to realize that.

Being white does make you a target in certain black neighborhoods, just a being black makes you a target in certain white neighborhoods (like Howard Beach in Queens).

Does that mean that every black person in Harlem, or every white person in Howard Beach, is a threat to a person of the opposite race?  Of course not.  I have walked through black neighborhoods many times without a problem.  Yet I know that statistically, my chance of being a crime victim is much higher there than in a white neighborhood.  It's simply a fact of life, and I don't think denying it changes anything.

As far as Harlem goes, I have generally found it to be friendly.  I think many Harlem residents take pride in the history of their community, and in what it represents to blacks in general, and want to give off the best possible impression.

[dazzleman]

And white people are moving back into the city.

Perhaps its just desegregation slowly taking place.

I'm not sure why voting 85% Democrat would make someone think its 85% black. Seattle is 70% white and still voted 81% Kerry. White people in cities are liberal too.

Whites moving back into the city does not mean desegragation.  It simply means that neighborhoods transition from mostly black to mostly white, just as they transitioned in the other direction in the 1960s and 1970s.  There will never be true broad-based desegregation until the cultural gap between blacks and whites is significantly narrowed.

Well Harlem for example as seen a pretty decent influx of white residents & the area is becoming incresingly deseggregated

Not really.  It's seen an influx of highly successful and affluent blacks.  The whites are on the margins of Harlem, in parts that already border white neighborhoods and will become part of the white neighborhoods if the trend continues.  There is no real desegregation taking place in New York, I'm sorry to say.

[dazzleman]

Housing projects.

I live in Arlington right now and work in DC, and just walking around in the nice areas you'd think blacks were a small minority. But that's because you don't go to the bad areas... if you do (and are white), you're not leaving.

The city is getting whiter, though, as crappy areas are gradually bought up and redeveloped.. not even that gradual anymore, happening quite quickly.

Oh please/  D.C has somme bad areas, but just because your white & go to those areas doesn't mean your in danger.  Just like most inner-cities you only have something to worry about is if your gang affiliated & you run into members of a rival gang,  Just being white,, doesn't put you in any danger

Smash, though he may not be exactly correct on what he said he is right. If you are white and you travel into black neighborhoods, especially in cities like Baltimore & DC you have to be VERY VERY careful as you will get cut for just being white.

I agree States, generally.  It's naive wishful thinking to believe otherwise, unfortunately.

[dazzleman]

Most crime in inner-cities tends to be gang related, gang on gang type crime.  A white person doesn't have to worry about getting cut, or beat simply because they are white in a black neighborhood.  Now if they tend to be affiliated with a rival gang, are start using a bunch of racial slurs thats something a bit different, but for the most part in even the most high crime ridden black neighborhoods a white person does not have to worry about getting beat, or cut simply because they are white

I think you live in a dream world.  The only thing those gangs hate more than each other is white people.  For your own sake, I hope you don't test your theory too severely; you could end up dead.

As I said earlier, this goes both ways.  There are white neighborhoods where blacks clearly are not safe, either.  This is a fact of life in many urban areas, and I think it serves no purpose to deny it.

[dazzleman]

Most crime in inner-cities tends to be gang related, gang on gang type crime.  A white person doesn't have to worry about getting cut, or beat simply because they are white in a black neighborhood.  Now if they tend to be affiliated with a rival gang, are start using a bunch of racial slurs thats something a bit different, but for the most part in even the most high crime ridden black neighborhoods a white person does not have to worry about getting beat, or cut simply because they are white

As I said earlier, this goes both ways.  There are white neighborhoods where blacks clearly are not safe, either.  This is a fact of life in many urban areas, and I think it serves no purpose to deny it.

I doubt their are many white neighborhoods in which blacks would be blatantly attacked by the residents if they wandered in somehow. They most likely would be harassad by the police however.

There are certain neighborhoods in New York City that it's dangerous for a black person to enter unless they have somebody white with them.  The same is true of Boston.  That's a common thing in white working class neighborhoods of northern cities.

[dazzleman]

Yes, suburban elitists will never understand that most people who live in the cities like it there and don't want to move to the nightmarish pit of hell that is suburbia.

False.  Might be true for the soft hipsters and elite.  My parents grew up in the projects and they despised it.   I know a lot of people who still do and they hate it as well.  City living is only better if you can afford its benefits.

Dude, you have it exactly right.  I know several people who grew up in bad sections of the Bronx, and they absolutely despise it.  Once they get out, they are absolutely determined to NEVER go back.  Most don't even like to visit it, don't want to be reminded of it.  Nobody who really lived in some of those neighborhoods would ever make light of it, or say that anybody in their right mind would actually choose it.  They wouldn't.

[dazzleman]

What do you think about that Ozone Park/Howard Beach attack the other day?  It seems hate crime laws are a one way street.  Whites are brutally beaten by blacks every day but it doesn't make the cover of the Daily News.  Hate crime laws are a load of bullocks but that is for another thread.

Absolutely.  There's a total double standard.  Not to mention that the black who was beaten was in Howard Beach to steal cars.

The black "leaders" are completely unconcerned about crime committed against blacks by blacks, and probably welcome crimes committed by blacks against whites.  But they make a big thing of the 1% of crimes committed by whites against blacks.  This was thug-on-thug violence, and while I don't condone such a vicious attack, I know full well that if the perpetrator had been black and the victim white, it would be perfectly OK with these "civil rights leaders."

[dazzleman]

Yes, suburban elitists will never understand that most people who live in the cities like it there and don't want to move to the nightmarish pit of hell that is suburbia.

False.  Might be true for the soft hipsters and elite.  My parents grew up in the projects and they despised it.   I know a lot of people who still do and they hate it as well.  City living is only better if you can afford its benefits.

Dude, you have it exactly right.  I know several people who grew up in bad sections of the Bronx, and they absolutely despise it.  Once they get out, they are absolutely determined to NEVER go back.  Most don't even like to visit it, don't want to be reminded of it.  Nobody who really lived in some of those neighborhoods would ever make light of it, or say that anybody in their right mind would actually choose it.  They wouldn't.

Notice that these are the people who have moved out, not the people still living there.
Just a thought.

So you think the people still living there like it?  You have no idea what these neighborhoods are really like.

[dazzleman]

They found out after the attack, that they were there to steal cars.  They weren't at the time of the attack.  Also one of the reasons this is being called a hate  crime is all the racial crap that was thrown around by the attackers when they jumped the guy.  Not to mention one of the guy's involved has a history of attacking people of a different race.  On or shortly after 9/11 he was arrested for shooting paintballs at Shik worsphipers while yelling out racial epithats towards them

I do agree it's a bias crime, though I don't think that really makes any difference.

Nobody ever calls it a bias crime when whites are victims of crime by blacks.  That just gets labeled as economic, so I guess it's OK.  And of course, it gets no attention.  Crimes against blacks by other blacks get no attention either.  This type of crime is probably about 1% of all the crimes, but gets all the attention, because it satisfies a wharped, politically correct view of the world that blacks in New York are cowering in fear from their ruthless white oppressors.  That is pretty far from the truth, to say the least.

[dazzleman]

They found out after the attack, that they were there to steal cars.  They weren't at the time of the attack.  Also one of the reasons this is being called a hate  crime is all the racial crap that was thrown around by the attackers when they jumped the guy.  Not to mention one of the guy's involved has a history of attacking people of a different race.  On or shortly after 9/11 he was arrested for shooting paintballs at Shik worsphipers while yelling out racial epithats towards them

I do agree it's a bias crime, though I don't think that really makes any difference.

Nobody ever calls it a bias crime when whites are victims of crime by blacks.  That just gets labeled as economic, so I guess it's OK.  And of course, it gets no attention.  Crimes against blacks by other blacks get no attention either.  This type of crime is probably about 1% of all the crimes, but gets all the attention, because it satisfies a wharped, politically correct view of the world that blacks in New York are cowering in fear from their ruthless white oppressors.  That is pretty far from the truth, to say the least.

You can't be "racist" against the oppressor race! Don't you know that already?

HAHA!  You're so right, States.  What was I thinking?

The only problem with that is that in certain parts of New York City, blacks are the oppressor race.  That is certainly true if one examines the crime statistics.  But all that needs to be excused in the name of racial "harmony," while any crime by a white person against a black one, no matter how infrequent or how small a percentage of the total that these crimes are, must be magnified by at least 1000%.

[dazzleman]

Some photos of the Bronx...

Here

Some interesting stuff Here as well

To say that public housing has been done badly in the U.S is an understatement of epic proportions...

For comparison this is a photo of what is (IMO) the very worst piece of public housing ever built in the U.K, the Hulme Crescents in Manchester (since demolished).



That there seems to be literally thousands of pubic housing projects in the U.S worse (far, far worse) than that is pretty depressing...

I agree with you.  The Bronx is a profoundly depressing and disturbing place.  If I had to live there, I think I would slit my throat.

I was once talking to a guy from Atlanta, and I described the Bronx to him.  I described a bad but relatively small section of Atlanta that we had passed through, and said the Bronx is basically block after block after block of what we saw in that bad Atlanta neighborhood.  His answer was "Lord, deliver me."

I made some comments on public housing in the US in another thread, in response to a comment by NickShepDEM criticizing Ronald Reagan because he severely cut the HUD budget.  My point was that this was not a bad thing based upon the type of housing that HUD was actually creating at that time.

Public housing is one of the worst failures of the mid-century liberal philosophy.  There are other outgrowths of that same philosophy, such as busing, that failed just as badly.  They are all intertwined in one big poison ball, and we need to see how they all intersect and have put us on the road to hell.

[dazzleman]

Public housing is one of the worst failures of the mid-century liberal philosophy.  There are other outgrowths of that same philosophy, such as busing, that failed just as badly.  They are all intertwined in one big poison ball, and we need to see how they all intersect and have put us on the road to hell.

The idea of public housing isn't a bad one IMO; government (local or national) providing decent quality housing for people who can't afford it from private providers.
As an example this is an old photo of a (then) new council estate next to the housing it replaced:



And there's nothing to say that government built housing can't look nice either:



The problems start with bad and/or insane planners (especially when there's a new or newish fad around, like tower blocks) and shoddy construction due to a desire to get them built as fast as possible and at the lowest cost possible.
I'm not sure what drives people to design the sort of **** seen in the Projects in and around New York... sadists perhaps?

Racism.

Really. I think that had a role to play.

Maybe.  But public housing originally was built mainly for poor whites.  It was only later that the terms "black" and "public housing" became virtually synonomous, as whites left public housing and were replaced by blacks.

[dazzleman]

True...(although I was thinking mostly of 70's architecture.) Not to mention that class prejudice can be quite as bad as racial one...really it's one and the same. The fundamental message of privileged group x-ism is "these are not really people like us. We need not care what happens to them."

But I'm not claiming that's the only reason, only that it plays a role in shaping attitudes towards public housing architecture.
God. Architects. Don't get me started on architects. Anyone who values the aesthetic pleasure of a model higher than the opinions of people who'll actually have to live in or work in or, in the cases of skyscrapers, live or work near them is a piece of human buttwipe. (stops ranting)

Much as I hate public housing, I don't really agree that there was malice behind the design of it.  It was really more stupidity than malice in my opinion.

If the motive was malice, it would have been easier to simply do nothing about housing.  We spent billions of dollars on "slum clearance" and built new housing in its place that was supposed to solve the slum problem, but instead created worse slums than existed before. 

But the intentions were good, in my opinion.  Public housing was made dense so that it could accomodate as many needy people as possible.  These nightmarish hellhole projects are actually a good example of runaway idealism, untempered by any type of realistic look at problems.  The thought was that slums were a building/construction problem, and that new buildings that were well-maintained would solve the problem.  This thinking didn't take into account the fact that it was the tenants themselves who were destroying the buildings, shooting out windows, urinating in the elevators, etc.  These projects were also a product of failed urban planning notions that gained popularity starting in the 1930s that failed to take into account the way people really live.

So while I am hostile to public housing, the disaster we created was more a product of unrealistic idealism, and a certain amount of presumptuousness and ignorance, rather than malice toward the poor, in my opinion.  People who really hate the poor don't advocate spending billions of dollars to house them.

[dazzleman]

You're living in a democracy, and one with a bureaucratic apparatus at that. That means that people of very different persuasions are involved in shaping decisions. The people who sit on the planning comittees that decide which architect to use are not the same people who forced the decision to "do something" through congress.

Then, it should be noted that the problem was in no small part a construction/maintenance problem, and that a modern "project" is tangibly better than a 19th century slum. Don't believe me? Look at the cholera rates.

I'm not saying that your point is entirely ludicrous, not at all - just that it needs a fair bit of tempering to make it into a valid one.

The architecture used in public housing was designed for cost-effectiveness.  The goal was to house as many people as possible, and even in the liberal 1960s, planners knew that there were limits to what the public would fund.

I don't mean to claim that the slums that the projects replaced were good.  But in fairness, to use the example, the cholera rates would have dropped with or without public housing because of things like sewage and plumbing.  It didn't require the level of investment inherent in public housing to bring that about.

Initially, the projects were a step up from the old slums.  At the beginning, public housing tenants were carefully screened to keep out the riff-raff.  Then some liberal groups claimed this was discriminatory, and the floodgates for open.  Paradoxically, this grievously hurt the people that liberals claimed to care the most about -- the poor.  Liberal emphasis on income transfers over work in the 1960s were also a death knell for the projects, as many residents gave up working for the security of a small but reliable government check.  Therefore, public housing became a huge island of people who didn't work, and had no connection to the overall larger society.  This deepened the poverty problem since there were fewer and fewer avenues of escape, and made people increasingly dependent on welfare in a very vicious cycle.

As life in the projects became worse and worse, with more and more violence, a huge stigma settled over those who lived there, and now it was the outside society that wanted nothing to do with the people from the projects.

It is a complicated problem, but I think it's clear that US urban policy in the 1940s through 1980s was a collossal failure.

[dazzleman]

Richard Nixon's legacy to the civil rights movement was assured in 1971, when he placed a moratorium on the construction of any new housing projects. God bless him.

Amen, brother.

[dazzleman]

Richard Nixon's legacy to the civil rights movement was assured in 1971, when he placed a moratorium on the construction of any new housing projects. God bless him.

Amen, brother.

That's a good thing how?

Have you been reading the thread?